2-H Sword +1 OCV?

[phydaux]

In Fantasy Hero 5th ed the 2-Handed Sword is listed as having +1 OCV.

 

Is that because of reach? Is there ever a time when I would lose that, or get a minus? Do the rules take into account half-swording in close combat?

[Beast]

it is a big honkin sword

with you in 1 hex and the sword can covers 2/3 to a full hex just with it's length ,avoid it is a hard thing with out move out of the hex

Quillions,and pommel can handle trying to get inside the blade or make a custom MA for it

[Christopher]

Weapons can have something around -2 OCV too +2 OCV (and ranged Weapons have Range-PSL in addition to those). I am not certain how those values were picked, but this is thier 6E explanation (i guess 5E says the same somewhere):

"This is applied as a bonus or penalty against all attacks made with the weapon. OCV bonuses are bought as a 2-point Combat Skill Level with the Limitations OAF, Required Hands, and Real

Weapon OCV penalties are a minor Side Effect (automatically occurs; -½) for the weapon."

 

What I could think, is that those represent the "versatility" of the weapon. With a dagger you can stab - and that is it. With a greatsword you can: Stab, Cut, Fence*, Parry (extra OCV affects those too),

It could also simulate the "Quality" of a weapon or how designed it is for war/fighting (a Spear and Hammer are tools first).

 

*Not a joke, greatsword techniques include a "fencing" like position and moves. To a lesser degree that applies to longswords too. You'll also find quarterstaff elements in it.

 

 

I know that in 6E +OCV from longer reach (relative to the opponetns reach) is an optional rule in addition and seperate to what the weapon provides itself. Same with the rule about "long weapon in enclosed Spaces" optional Rule.

[L. Marcus]

I believe* that in 4th Ed, swords in general were written with a +1 OCV, possibly to reflect their versatility. I'd be inclined to do the same.

 

* NuSoard Graphite commented on a post once, long ago ... Those longer with the system than I will have to correct me.

[Old Man]

I believe* that in 4th Ed, swords in general were written with a +1 OCV, possibly to reflect their versatility. I'd be inclined to do the same.

 

* NuSoard Graphite commented on a post once, long ago ... Those longer with the system than I will have to correct me.

That's correct. In 4th, swords were generally +1 OCV, hammers were +1 Stunx, spears had reach and could be thrown, picks were AP, flails could flail, and axes were just damage. There were exceptions but these were the overall trends.

 

4th threw out the 1st ed weapon chart in favor of a formally derived chart based on a power-like system. It was boring because all the STR Mins came down on breakpoints but was otherwise okay. 5th threw out that chart in favor of one that was neither realistic nor balanced. 6th made balance improvements to the chart from 5th, but it's still hard to see any consistent reasoning behind the values.

[Killer Shrike]

Presumably because whomever drafted that particular weapon list (Steve L. probably) felt that it should be easier to hit with such a weapon on average. Individual instances of a "foo" weapon might be more or less wieldy or more or less damaging. An item on a list is just a default starting point.

 

{shrug} - it's all just mechanics backing a SFX ("big long sharp piece of balanced metal") anyway, so it really doesn't matter what a weapons list says.

 

And now time for an irregularly scheduled rant:

 

I'm always a bit baffled by how hung up people seem to get on weapon lists in generic toolkit games.

 

Weapon lists may matter in non-toolkit games where everything is an arbitrary expression of flat abilities, and thus the mechanics attached to a particular label ("sword", "axe", "bavarian duck-billed ear-spoon") might be unique or not easily ported or combined.

 

But in toolkit games where everything is just an expression of base mechanics or concepts...meh...who cares?

 

In the HERO System specifically everything is just some number of damage classes with various modifiers applied. Any corollary abilities such as bonuses to hit or secondary benefits are just tacked on as needed.

 

If a person has some strong ideas about how "real weapons" should be modeled, they are free to express their own version. It's as valid as anything printed in an "official" book...in the context of their own games.

 

 

[Old Man]

Presumably because whomever drafted that particular weapon list (Steve L. probably) felt that it should be easier to hit with such a weapon on average. Individual instances of a "foo" weapon might be more or less wieldy or more or less damaging. An item on a list is just a default starting point.

 

{shrug} - it's all just mechanics backing a SFX ("big long sharp piece of balanced metal") anyway, so it really doesn't matter what a weapons list says.

 

And now time for an irregularly scheduled rant:

 

I'm always a bit baffled by how hung up people seem to get on weapon lists in generic toolkit games.

 

Weapon lists may matter in non-toolkit games where everything is an arbitrary expression of flat abilities, and thus the mechanics attached to a particular label ("sword", "axe", "bavarian duck-billed ear-spoon") might be unique or not easily ported or combined.

 

But in toolkit games where everything is just an expression of base mechanics or concepts...meh...who cares?

 

In the HERO System specifically everything is just some number of damage classes with various modifiers applied. Any corollary abilities such as bonuses to hit or secondary benefits are just tacked on as needed.

 

If a person has some strong ideas about how "real weapons" should be modeled, they are free to express their own version. It's as valid as anything printed in an "official" book...in the context of their own games.

 

The usual dodge to handwave away bad game design. "Well if you don't like it, write your own!" I paid money for this book; I would like for it to do some things for me, thanks. It'd also be nice if I could play the same game as everyone else instead of having layers of house rules to cover the holes. Unless the objective is to keep Hero as an exclusive club of aging grognards where newbs are unwelcome at best.

 

This is the fantasy genre--melee combat is likely to be prominent, so perhaps the weapon table should not be arbitrary.

[Killer Shrike]

Presumably because whomever drafted that particular weapon list (Steve L. probably) felt that it should be easier to hit with such a weapon on average. Individual instances of a "foo" weapon might be more or less wieldy or more or less damaging. An item on a list is just a default starting point.

 

{shrug} - it's all just mechanics backing a SFX ("big long sharp piece of balanced metal") anyway, so it really doesn't matter what a weapons list says.

 

And now time for an irregularly scheduled rant:

 

I'm always a bit baffled by how hung up people seem to get on weapon lists in generic toolkit games.

 

Weapon lists may matter in non-toolkit games where everything is an arbitrary expression of flat abilities, and thus the mechanics attached to a particular label ("sword", "axe", "bavarian duck-billed ear-spoon") might be unique or not easily ported or combined.

 

But in toolkit games where everything is just an expression of base mechanics or concepts...meh...who cares?

 

In the HERO System specifically everything is just some number of damage classes with various modifiers applied. Any corollary abilities such as bonuses to hit or secondary benefits are just tacked on as needed.

 

If a person has some strong ideas about how "real weapons" should be modeled, they are free to express their own version. It's as valid as anything printed in an "official" book...in the context of their own games.

 

Well, it is arbitrary...as are all the other presented expressions of sample gear and powers and etc using the HERO System mechanics. That's the nature of a toolkit system. The published material are examples only...and laced with lots of "Options".

 

If you happen to agree with the arbitrary design decisions made for you by the author of the book, then use them. If not, make your own arbitrary decisions and tweak or use a different source.

 

If you want a "one official way to do everything" system...a generic build whatever toolkit is maybe not the best way to go.

 

And casting it in the terms of a "exclusive club of .... where newbs are unwelcome...." argument doesn't stand up. Some players like open toolkits and will be receptive to a generic define what you want system, others don't. It doesn't have anything to do with their "newb" or "not newb" status.

 

Some will find it liberating to know...hey, if you don't like it you are encouraged to change it to suit your preferences. Others, apparently, not so much.

[Tasha]

In Fantasy Hero 5th ed the 2-Handed Sword is listed as having +1 OCV.

 

Is that because of reach? Is there ever a time when I would lose that, or get a minus? Do the rules take into account half-swording in close combat?

 

From FH I to date Swords have been written up with a +1 OCV. I think it's to reflect that they are more agile and easier to wield than other weapons which tend to be top heavy. When A system gets as old as Hero, there tend to be things that stick around from the earliest editions. Mostly because people don't perceive them as being broken. The Fantasy Weapon Chart being one of those things.

[Matt Holck]

champions varies attacks with advantage and limitation

 

that goes well in representing different weapons

[NuSoardGraphite]

 

From FH I to date Swords have been written up with a +1 OCV. I think it's to reflect that they are more agile and easier to wield than other weapons which tend to be top heavy. When A system gets as old as Hero, there tend to be things that stick around from the earliest editions. Mostly because people don't perceive them as being broken. The Fantasy Weapon Chart being one of those things.

 

That is slightly incorrect Tasha. Two-handed swords are the only one's that keep that bonus. As mentioned earlier, 4th edition on back had swords at +1 OCV. This was dropped from 5th and 6th editions. Many of us here wondered why feeling that swords deserve a +1 OCV bonus for versatility. (slash, thrust, chop many different attack modes) There have been at least half a dozen different threads on this very subject over the years. A quick search should find several of them.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

champions varies attacks with advantage and limitation

 

that goes well in representing different weapons

 

Indeed. That's how weapons were differentiated from one another. Swords got +1 OCV. Maces got Penetrating, hammers +1 StunX, Flails got Indirect (they would bypass the DCV bonus of shields), Spears and hafted weapons got reach (+1"-+2"). Smaller weapons like daggers, handaxes etc got the ranged advantage (could be thrown) and axes got +1 DC bonus to damage over what was typical for it's "size/weight class" (i.e. the battleaxe being a 1.5 handed weapon would do 2D6k base damage instead of 1.5D6k like the bastard sword). With the current weapons rules in the 5th and 6th, some of the other weapon types get their advantages, but swords get nothing special...it makes them generic in the extreme and a lot less attractive for players to choose for their character.

 

[bigbywolfe]

Presumably because whomever drafted that particular weapon list (Steve L. probably) felt that it should be easier to hit with such a weapon on average. Individual instances of a "foo" weapon might be more or less wieldy or more or less damaging. An item on a list is just a default starting point.

 

{shrug} - it's all just mechanics backing a SFX ("big long sharp piece of balanced metal") anyway, so it really doesn't matter what a weapons list says.

 

And now time for an irregularly scheduled rant:

 

I'm always a bit baffled by how hung up people seem to get on weapon lists in generic toolkit games.

 

Weapon lists may matter in non-toolkit games where everything is an arbitrary expression of flat abilities, and thus the mechanics attached to a particular label ("sword", "axe", "bavarian duck-billed ear-spoon") might be unique or not easily ported or combined.

 

But in toolkit games where everything is just an expression of base mechanics or concepts...meh...who cares?

 

In the HERO System specifically everything is just some number of damage classes with various modifiers applied. Any corollary abilities such as bonuses to hit or secondary benefits are just tacked on as needed.

 

If a person has some strong ideas about how "real weapons" should be modeled, they are free to express their own version. It's as valid as anything printed in an "official" book...in the context of their own games.

 

I understand it is an arbitrary list, but since it is arbitrary it could at least be balanced. If you want "realistic" weapons sure go build your own, but it would be nice if the example list at least presented weapons that were roughly equivalent in utility. The current list is not.

[Lucius]

Alexander's First Rule of Weapons Tables: For every weapon in the game, there should be some reason why someone would choose to use that weapon.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thought the first rule was, don't talk about weapons tables

 

 

 

[Killer Shrike]

Presumably because whomever drafted that particular weapon list (Steve L. probably) felt that it should be easier to hit with such a weapon on average. Individual instances of a "foo" weapon might be more or less wieldy or more or less damaging. An item on a list is just a default starting point.

 

{shrug} - it's all just mechanics backing a SFX ("big long sharp piece of balanced metal") anyway, so it really doesn't matter what a weapons list says.

 

And now time for an irregularly scheduled rant:

 

I'm always a bit baffled by how hung up people seem to get on weapon lists in generic toolkit games.

 

Weapon lists may matter in non-toolkit games where everything is an arbitrary expression of flat abilities, and thus the mechanics attached to a particular label ("sword", "axe", "bavarian duck-billed ear-spoon") might be unique or not easily ported or combined.

 

But in toolkit games where everything is just an expression of base mechanics or concepts...meh...who cares?

 

In the HERO System specifically everything is just some number of damage classes with various modifiers applied. Any corollary abilities such as bonuses to hit or secondary benefits are just tacked on as needed.

 

If a person has some strong ideas about how "real weapons" should be modeled, they are free to express their own version. It's as valid as anything printed in an "official" book...in the context of their own games.

 

And I don't disagree with you. I don't believe I said anything along the lines of "the current list is balanced; use it because it is so balanced!"

 

I too wish it were better than it is. Yet, regardless, wishing a thing were true does not make it true.

 

However, as I said in my post, hey...it _is_ a toolkit system. So, rather than railing against the state of a list's existence, a sufficiently motivated person is free to either use a different list or make their own, or make spot tweaks.

 

Personally, when I care enough about it for a particular setting for some reason, I do just that. I made an elaborate "Arms & Armor Variant" for high fantasy games in the past. And at least a couple of the "variant weapon" options presented in FantasyHERO were suggested by me. I also routinely make custom weapons for my various settings...for instance...MetaCyber, Here There Be Monsters, etc.

 

However, personally, its all just labels and mechanics. I don't really care that much. If gear isn't particularly important to the setting I just use the published stuff as is.

[Shadowsoul]

A little off topic but none the less I have a question. Have there ever been any rules for 'getting past the point', (no jokes about missing the point of the thread please), when fighting someone who has a pike or other pole-arm?

 

First off, I think that someone with a polearm should have some kind of 'first-strike' ability against someone with a sword, axe etc aside from the fact that they can attack with impunity for one action if their opponent is stupid enough to rock up to them and stand a couple of metres away. Of course the spearman could move to within a couple of metres away but I'm not sure that spearmen and pikemen were noted for charging, (could well be wrong on that, military historians feel free to correct me). Positioning aside, this advantage could be represented by a dex bonus which can only be used to attack first against people of the same Speed or by a spearman simply holding his action until the target is in range and then attacking before they get within a swordlength of him.

 

However, once that swordsman is close enough to share a hex with the spearman or pikeman he is at a huge advantage. The business end of the polearm user's weapon is 2-4 metres, (1-2" of Reach), away from the swordsman and he is left with a top-heavy staff that he probably hasn't been trained to use as a staff. I would say that the spearman either can't attack at this range, must use a specific move to shorten his grip on the spear to bring it into range, (thereby possibly costing him an action and certainly reducing his damage) or at least take an OCV penalty. Perhaps once the opponent gets toe to toe the polearm user gets -1 OCV for every point of Reach he has?

[L. Marcus]

5th Ed. Fantasy Hero, p. 187, OCV Penalties(!). Dunno if this carried over to 6th Ed., I don't have that book.

[Christougher]

A little off topic but none the less I have a question. Have there ever been any rules for 'getting past the point', (no jokes about missing the point of the thread please), when fighting someone who has a pike or other pole-arm?

 

First off, I think that someone with a polearm should have some kind of 'first-strike' ability against someone with a sword, axe etc aside from the fact that they can attack with impunity for one action if their opponent is stupid enough to rock up to them and stand a couple of metres away. Of course the spearman could move to within a couple of metres away but I'm not sure that spearmen and pikemen were noted for charging, (could well be wrong on that, military historians feel free to correct me). Positioning aside, this advantage could be represented by a dex bonus which can only be used to attack first against people of the same Speed or by a spearman simply holding his action until the target is in range and then attacking before they get within a swordlength of him.

 

However, once that swordsman is close enough to share a hex with the spearman or pikeman he is at a huge advantage. The business end of the polearm user's weapon is 2-4 metres, (1-2" of Reach), away from the swordsman and he is left with a top-heavy staff that he probably hasn't been trained to use as a staff. I would say that the spearman either can't attack at this range, must use a specific move to shorten his grip on the spear to bring it into range, (thereby possibly costing him an action and certainly reducing his damage) or at least take an OCV penalty. Perhaps once the opponent gets toe to toe the polearm user gets -1 OCV for every point of Reach he has?

My fantasy game gives Lightning Reflexes +2 for the polearm when keeping its target at range, reversing to -2 when stepped in on. I might tweak that some based on length of the polearm, but that works.

 

Chris.

[Shadowsoul]

5th Ed. Fantasy Hero, p. 187, OCV Penalties(!). Dunno if this carried over to 6th Ed., I don't have that book.

Hmm, different way of simulating it but quite neat nonetheless. Cheers.

[Christopher]

5th Ed. Fantasy Hero, p. 187, OCV Penalties(!). Dunno if this carried over to 6th Ed., I don't have that book.

There is such a rule in 6E2 202

[NuSoardGraphite]

A little off topic but none the less I have a question. Have there ever been any rules for 'getting past the point', (no jokes about missing the point of the thread please), when fighting someone who has a pike or other pole-arm?

 

First off, I think that someone with a polearm should have some kind of 'first-strike' ability against someone with a sword, axe etc aside from the fact that they can attack with impunity for one action if their opponent is stupid enough to rock up to them and stand a couple of metres away. Of course the spearman could move to within a couple of metres away but I'm not sure that spearmen and pikemen were noted for charging, (could well be wrong on that, military historians feel free to correct me). Positioning aside, this advantage could be represented by a dex bonus which can only be used to attack first against people of the same Speed or by a spearman simply holding his action until the target is in range and then attacking before they get within a swordlength of him.

 

However, once that swordsman is close enough to share a hex with the spearman or pikeman he is at a huge advantage. The business end of the polearm user's weapon is 2-4 metres, (1-2" of Reach), away from the swordsman and he is left with a top-heavy staff that he probably hasn't been trained to use as a staff. I would say that the spearman either can't attack at this range, must use a specific move to shorten his grip on the spear to bring it into range, (thereby possibly costing him an action and certainly reducing his damage) or at least take an OCV penalty. Perhaps once the opponent gets toe to toe the polearm user gets -1 OCV for every point of Reach he has?

The actual rules are very close to this.

 

Basically, the character with the shorter weapon has a -1 OCV until he is able to hit his opponent, in which case it is then assumed that he was able to come within proper striking distance inside his opponents reach, which means the penalty flips to the wielder of the longer weapon until such a time as that character successfully hits, at which point distance has been gained again.

 

Of course a character with a long weapon could implement movement to give ground to once again gain the advantage, but in some scenarios this may be undesirable (fighting near a wall or cliff and unable to retreat)

 

I don't think the rule mentions it, but I would allow a bonus to Lightning Reflexes for the character with the longer weapon...basically +1 per +1" reach difference between the combatants.